Wood Splitter: Self-contained vs Tractor Powered?

[alexeaton]

Hi All,
I own an L6060 and I am trying to decide whether I should get a self contained or a PTO driven. What do you think?

Here is what I've heard about PTO driven:
Lower cost
Longer cycle time
More cumbersome because tractor is occupied

Here's what I hear about self contained:
Costs more
Faster cycle time
More flexible to bring to more locations
convenient that tractor is free

I'd you have experience with both types, please let me know which you like better. If you have experience with one type, please let me know if you like it.

Thanks!
Alex

 

[TheOldHokie]

Hi All,
I own an L6060 and I am trying to decide whether I should get a self contained or a PTO driven. What do you think?

Here is what I've heard about PTO driven:
Lower cost
Longer cycle time
More cumbersome because tractor is occupied

Here's what I hear about self contained:
Costs more
Faster cycle time
More flexible to bring to more locations
convenient that tractor is free

I'd you have experience with both types, please let me know which you like better. If you have experience with one type, please let me know if you like it.

Thanks!
Alex

You might want to read through this thread.

3pt Log Splitters

I have used both and there are advantages and disadvantages to both. You will probably get strong opinions both ways but this is very much a personal preference. Much like what brand of oil you think is best.

Soooo. With the changes I detailed in that thread I am more than happy with my 3pt splitter. Prior to that not so much because of the slow cycle time i was getting on the smaller tractor. Your L6060 has a 9.4 GPM pump and will get you under 15 seconds cycle time on a 12T 3pt splitter. Add one of the high speed valves I described in the other thread and you will be close to single digits. That is not slow by any standard.

In my 25 years using the 3pt model cycle time has been the only negative I have experienced. Fuel costs with the new and larger tractor may now be a consideration but it would take more years than I have left to amortize the added cost of a gas engine model. It will put hours on your tractor but so does mowing with a 3pt implement and splitting wood is a lot less wear and tear. In truth you could make both these arguments about many 3pt implements.

IMO having it on the 3pt is also an advantage. It easily goes into the woods with me where I can cut split and stack a bucket full of wood and haul it back to the hose and dump it right on my porch. I have been doing that for two plus decades and consider it a convenience. Tow behinds can't do that nearly as well.

Finally, I plan on adding a quick hitch to the new tractor and that should make it a breeze to pick up, transport, and drop anywhere I want it.

Dan

 

[85Hokie]

Not sure where you get the PTO is cheaper ? I find stand alone splitters for less than $1600 where as the PTO version is considerably more expensive.

Personally - I would do a little search for stand alone on CL and Marketplace and find a good uses stand alone.

The ability to park the splitter and use the FEL to transport the wood to and from the splitter would be the main focus for me. Think about this - your FEL half full of full logs brought to the splitter, as you split, the smaller pieces are placed BACK into the empty portion of the FEL, you simply pivot with each coming and going -all at the same height!

The amount of "BACK" work will be cut down by at least half!


To run the splitter via the tractor - the rpms will need to get up there - NOT for the power, rather the flow speed of the hydraulic fluid! A 3 point will work at idle and split the wood - but damn slow! And you will have to move the wood from point to point or pick up the wood another time.

A gas powered splitter will require ANOTHER engine and another fuel supply - but in my opinion the only way to go.

 

[edritchey]

I'm not sure why you would want to split wood running hours on a 60hp tractor vs a 10hp or so gas engine.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

back when I was young and healthy, I'd help a friend do 20-25 bush cords a season, yeah REAL cords of wood...
After the first season, he got rid of the 3PT splitter, went selfcontained, never looked back. Faster,cheaper,easier,less maintenance and freed up tractor for other jobs. A lot will depend on where the cut logs are and quantity. If you want fast cycle times, design/build your splitter. You can get sub10 second cycle times with the proper pump/valve/hoses and cylinder. If you're making a LOT of firewood, get a 'firewood processor', or semi automate your setup.

 

[LFP57]

I considered the same thing, I have an LX2610 with 19.5 PTO HP. I looked around and I found a near new DR Chipper that is 18 HP ($1,300), it's rated at up to a 5 inch diameter (fire wood size.) I thought that with a 3 PT, if I ever had to transport to a friends place or my property up North, I had to haul both the tractor and the chipper. The DR allows me to tow it with a zero turn mower around the property, behind a ATV as well as car if I had to.

 

[PaulR]

Seems like such an easy contraption. I'm no hydraulics master but I thought about making one instead of paying $1000+ for one.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Google Supersplit logsplitter. I love mine. Not cheap but gets the job done fast. Probably several months lead time when ordering. Made in the U.S.A.

 

[ACDII]

I went down this rabbit hole last month. Get a tow behind or a 3pt. After finding out just the pump and tank alone would cost nearly as much as a tow behind, and thats before pricing the actual splitter, I decided the tow behind was it. Then a friend of mine said, why buy one when you can rent one? So I looked and found for $200 a week I could rent one and get all my firewood split for the year and be done with it. When not in use, it needs a place to be stored, preferably indoors out of weather, even covered they get grimy.

Only drawback of renting is reserving one, and having to get all the splitting done in that time frame and then returning it. If I rent one once a year, it would take 8 years of renting before I reached $1600. Something to consider.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

Yes, renting is the cheap, easy, clean solution for 'personal use' firewood. One trick is to get 3 people for the weekend. One 'loader', one 'lever operator', one 'tosser'. Every hour change jobs, and have a 10 minute break. Providing the stack of logs is organized and reasonable 'work ethic' ,the trio can easily split a LOT of wood in a few hours.memebr this is a SPLITTING party NOT a 'split and stack' !! breaking the ordeal into smaller jobs ,makes it ,well a little bit easier.

 

[hodge]

With a 3 ph splitter, you don't have the option of tilting the splitter vertical.

 

[hodge]

With a 3 ph splitter, you don't always have the option of tilting the splitter vertical. I think some of the newer ones offer it.

 

[mcfarmall]

My preference is for self-contained.

 

[Tim Horton]

At the time, in our area, a stand alone was what was available and cheaper than a tractor mount.. Performance wise I'm sure one would have been as good as the other..

I have seen advertisements for 3 point splitters that do go vertical.. At what cost to other models, I have no idea..

Everyone experience will be different..

 

[TheOldHokie]

At the time, in our area, a stand alone was what was available and cheaper than a tractor mount.. Performance wise I'm sure one would have been as good as the other..

I have seen advertisements for 3 point splitters that do go vertical.. At what cost to other models, I have no idea..

Everyone experience will be different..

I have seen more than advertisements. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and there are good arguments on both sides of this issue. But let me address a few bits of misinformation that have been promulgated here.

Horizontal/vertical operation is no less common on 3pt log splitters than self contained units. I purchased my H/V splitter (SpeeCo Model 400197N0) 20 years ago and it was nothing extraordinary then.

Up front a 3pt log splitter is almost universally a lot less expensive than a towable gasoline powered splitter and over its life requires far less maintenance. No engine, no pump, and no trailer body is a big cost saver. I purchased this splitter 20 years ago at Central Tractor - Farm and Family for $399. Farm and Fleet is currently selling a similar 3pt splitter for $650. They also have that exact same splitter trailer mounted with a gasoline engine for $1250 - just about double the cost.

My 3pt splitter has never been stored indoors and other than a little rust, dirt, dings, scratches, and one slightly bent leg (operator error) is as good as new. Up until this year when I replaced the leaking valve and both hoses maintenance costs over 20 years have been ZERO.

The cons have been pretty simple - slow cycle times and reduced splitting force. Trailer mounted splitters typically use a two stage pump which produces greater flow rates and hydraulic pressures higher than most small utility tractors can muster. For example the 3pt Farm and Fleet splitter mentioned above is 12T and about 25 seconds cycle time on my L3901. The trailer mounted version claims 11.5 second cycle time and 28T splitting force. The splitting force is clearly exaggerated based on the listed cylinder size and pressure rating and probably closer to 20T. Still considerably better then the 3pt performance.

Please understand - I am not advocating for one over the other. I am just offering some real life experience and data to help the OP make an informed decision.

Dan

 

[GreensvilleJay]

yes, the fewer the parts the less can go wrong, well hopefully...

'cycle time' is just another factor, a 'numbers game' most get caught up on but the realty is it's the HUMAN 'cycle time' that is more important. Sure, young bucks can toss and handle a bush cord faster than the splitter does it's work, but... get a few more years on them, and by the end of the day, the splitter is working faster. Logs seem to get heavier as the sun sets, they were lighter 20 years ago, sigh.....
If you can setup/stage the 'processing area' properly and get into a 'rhythm', you can split a lot of wood, after that it's , ugh,stacking time......

 

[mikester]

I went with self powered because I occasionally split very large logs that are too heavy to lift. I use the tractor forks to move the logs around. Can't do that with a 3PH splitter.

I have a design for a splitter attachment for my backhoe. The idea is to use it as a tree shear as well as a log splitter. Future winter project.

 

[Captain13]

I use a self contained. I use the liquid totes for firewood storage so I want the tractor free to move empty and loaded totes. Also, my splitter has an 8 second cycle time with a five inch cylinder and the log lift will handle up to a 500lb piece of wood. I don’t put hours on my tractor using a splitter by using a self contained unit. I can raise and lower my splitter wedge depending on log size and size of splits I want. I can use my four way or my six way way and change in under 10 seconds. My unit has a 25 gallon reservoir with a temp gauge that will not contaminate my tractor hydraulics. These are just my main reasons.

 

[TheOldHokie]

I use a self contained. I use the liquid totes for firewood storage so I want the tractor free to move empty and loaded totes. Also, my splitter has an 8 second cycle time with a five inch cylinder and the log lift will handle up to a 500lb piece of wood. I don’t put hours on my tractor using a splitter by using a self contained unit. I can raise and lower my splitter wedge depending on log size and size of splits I want. I can use my four way or my six way way and change in under 10 seconds. My unit has a 25 gallon reservoir with a temp gauge that will not contaminate my tractor hydraulics. These are just my main reasons.

You are describing a $6K+ splitter. That is a whole different universe.

Dan

 

[GeoHorn]

on 3pt log splitters……. No engine, no pump, and no trailer body is a big cost saver.

Not exactly…. on a 3pt splitter you are placing wear and tear on your very expensive tractor engine and hydraulic pump and systems. The fuel consumption is also higher than necessary for such a low-energy-demand job as splitting wood.…. sorta like using an asphalt-compactor/roller to run over and mash potatoes.

The drawback to a self contained unit is the maintenance of an additional small-engine around the place.

The “storage” issues complained of by another poster is also misleading because a 3-pt splitter also must be stored someplace…. AND maintained.

And it should be considered that if you have a tractor which uses SUDT that you will be requiring it to also supply a 3-pt splitter…. while a self-contained unit can use less expensive “generic“ hydraulic fluid…OR…can use the Kubota-fluid you drained out of your tractor last time you did a fluid-change.

My preference is a self-contained unit for these and other reasons (such as not tying up my 3-pt hitch or my tractor for other tasks.)

YMMV